Matthias Gemuh wrote:Are you saying that Robbolito borrowed its UCI output from Fruit ?
Or has original Robbolito UCI output been replaced by Fruit output ?
BTW, some people say it is acceptable that Houdini has gone commercial because Robbolito is public domain open source. See OpenChess forum, amongst others.
Matthias.
No, the Robbo output is completely different to Fruit and Rybka.
Well I have to disagree myself. I probably didn't look close enough to Robbo. If I remember right I just had a look at ippo and thought it's the same as Robbo.
RobboLito 0.085g3 w32
Dec 22 2009 12:36:39
windows version by kranium and sentinel
go
info depth 1 seldepth 2 score cp 1 time 0 nodes 21 nps 0 pv h2h4
info depth 1 seldepth 2 score cp 6 time 0 nodes 23 nps 0 pv g2g4
info depth 1 seldepth 2 score cp 29 time 0 nodes 27 nps 0 pv e2e4
info depth 1 seldepth 2 score cp 58 time 1 nodes 38 nps 38000 pv g1f3
info depth 2 seldepth 6 score cp 19 time 1 nodes 117 nps 117000 pv g1f3 b8c6 b1c3 g8f6 d2d3
info depth 3 seldepth 6 score cp 19 time 1 nodes 216 nps 216000 pv g1f3 b8c6 b1c3 g8f6 d2d3
info depth 4 seldepth 7 score cp 19 time 2 nodes 532 nps 266000 pv g1f3 b8c6 b1c3 g8f6 d2d3
info depth 5
info depth 5 seldepth 21 score cp 6 time 4 nodes 1322 nps 330000 pv g1f3 b8c6 b1c3 g8f6 d2d4 d7d6 h2h3 c8e6 e2e4
info depth 6
info depth 6 seldepth 21 score cp 6 time 5 nodes 1758 nps 351000 pv g1f3 b8c6 b1c3 g8f6 d2d4 d7d6 h2h3 c8e6 e2e4
info depth 7
info depth 7 seldepth 25 score cp 7 time 8 nodes 3060 nps 382000 pv g1f3 b8c6 b1c3 g8f6 h2h3 d7d6 d2d3 c8e6 c1e3 h7h6 f3d4
info depth 8
info depth 8 seldepth 25 score cp 7 time 13 nodes 4198 nps 322000 pv g1f3 b8c6 b1c3 g8f6 h2h3 d7d6 d2d3 c8e6 c1e3 h7h6 f3d4
info depth 9
Exactly the reason for my negativity towards Houdini and it's author....
I asked him from the very begining about the origins of Houdini and he kept silent like a dead fish....
Dr.D
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
Matthias Gemuh wrote:Are you saying that Robbolito borrowed its UCI output from Fruit ?
Or has original Robbolito UCI output been replaced by Fruit output ?
BTW, some people say it is acceptable that Houdini has gone commercial because Robbolito is public domain open source. See OpenChess forum, amongst others.
Matthias.
No, the Robbo output is completely different to Fruit and Rybka.
Well I have to disagree myself. I probably didn't look close enough to Robbo. If I remember right I just had a look at ippo and thought it's the same as Robbo.
The case was solved long time ago but people kept on cheering Houdini because it's toping the rating lists for now....
Note that I had an issue with the Rybka's author as well even though it was also topping the rating lists for a long period of time....I stopped when he released Deep Rybka 4.1 as a bugfix seeing this as a sign of respect toward his customers....a weak sign but still a sign....
Dr.D
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
Don wrote:I hope you go by much more than just the info strings, that is not convincing at all as there is nothing wrong with patterning your output based on another program.
I'm quite convinced the OP is very much aware of that, and has written this topic as a kind of joke...
Robert
The logic people use on these forums is so broken that I cannot distinguish when someone is serious or not. People have said things much more stupid than this and were serious.
So you really didn't notice that the OP was actually making fun of the ICGA Rybka process?
He's now clearly demonstrated that you can produce any kind of irrelevant data listing and have genuine engine authors like yourself discuss it seriously...
Robert
Do you mean like a rating listing that shows Houdini 2.0 120 ELO higher than the IPON list shows and taking it seriously as a relevant data point?
Don wrote:I hope you go by much more than just the info strings, that is not convincing at all as there is nothing wrong with patterning your output based on another program.
It's not just the order of the info strings, it's also the place where they appear. This is different in different positions and equal in the output of Fruit and Houdini.
After I saw Pablo's post http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 95&t=40294 It looks like Houdini is by far closer to RobboLito than to Fruit. I guess even a sceptical person can't think this is coincidence. Even the counted nodes are equal until depth 4.
Can we agree that Houdini is based on Robbo?
Then my OP would mean that Robbo is based on Fruit. I think a lot of discussions are done about this topic. No need to warm this up
Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:Note that I had an issue with the Rybka's author as well even though it was also topping the rating lists for a long period of time....I stopped when he released Deep Rybka 4.1 as a bugfix seeing this as a sign of respect toward his customers....a weak sign but still a sign....
Dr.D
I agree the problem are rating lists who ban Engine A for "cloning" Engine B while they keep Engine B even if it is a proven "clone" of Engine C. I bet they keep also Engine D which is a proven "clone" of Engine A. Probably because they get Engine B and Engine D for free while others have to pay the "clones".
Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:Note that I had an issue with the Rybka's author as well even though it was also topping the rating lists for a long period of time....I stopped when he released Deep Rybka 4.1 as a bugfix seeing this as a sign of respect toward his customers....a weak sign but still a sign....
Dr.D
I agree the problem are rating lists who ban Engine A for "cloning" Engine B while they keep Engine B even if it is a proven "clone" of Engine C. I bet they keep also Engine D which is a proven "clone" of Engine A. Probably because they get Engine B and Engine D for free while others have to pay the "clones".
Pretty much the case ....yes
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
Don wrote:I hope you go by much more than just the info strings, that is not convincing at all as there is nothing wrong with patterning your output based on another program.
It's not just the order of the info strings, it's also the place where they appear. This is different in different positions and equal in the output of Fruit and Houdini.
After I saw Pablo's post http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 95&t=40294 It looks like Houdini is by far closer to RobboLito than to Fruit. I guess even a sceptical person can't think this is coincidence. Even the counted nodes are equal until depth 4.
Can we agree that Houdini is based on Robbo?
Then my OP would mean that Robbo is based on Fruit. I think a lot of discussions are done about this topic. No need to warm this up
I'm not prepared to warm this up right now either. However I would like to see it resolved one way or the other - a lot of programmers believe it is a rip-off of Ivanhoe or Robbo and a lot of evidence has been presented to show similarities. It's not likely it would be allowed to complete in ICGA events but I would like this to see it allowed if the evidence warrants it.
I believe it's based strongly on Ivanhoe or Robbo and like Rybka based on Fruit heavily modified. The Rybka case shows that just making heavy modifications is not enough to prove it's original. But to make a case you have to go beyond just picking and choosing a few things that are the same, you also have to show that it's unreasonable for them to be the same. That is not the case with the output format.
Don wrote:I believe it's based strongly on Ivanhoe or Robbo and like Rybka based on Fruit heavily modified. The Rybka case shows that just making heavy modifications is not enough to prove it's original. But to make a case you have to go beyond just picking and choosing a few things that are the same, you also have to show that it's unreasonable for them to be the same. That is not the case with the output format.
Probably it's not enough for legal action, that's right. But it's enough for me
Don wrote:I hope you go by much more than just the info strings, that is not convincing at all as there is nothing wrong with patterning your output based on another program.
It's not just the order of the info strings, it's also the place where they appear. This is different in different positions and equal in the output of Fruit and Houdini.
After I saw Pablo's post http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 95&t=40294 It looks like Houdini is by far closer to RobboLito than to Fruit. I guess even a sceptical person can't think this is coincidence. Even the counted nodes are equal until depth 4.
Can we agree that Houdini is based on Robbo?
Then my OP would mean that Robbo is based on Fruit. I think a lot of discussions are done about this topic. No need to warm this up
Certainly, the node match is the strongest proof. And this happens in any position:
